Politics

LivingTheDream said:

I am afraid to look it up, but have people who have been on drugs, or drunk ever been found mentally insane, I have seen more crazy shit from people who are blacked out. And if the person was diagnosed with a disorder and didnt take their medicine, are they still considered mentally incompetent. What is the difference between someone not taking their medicine and someone doing drugs, both made a decision that impacted their ability to make logical decisions. I realize this is a gray area, but feels like this is a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Those committing crimes while under the influence had a choice to not take drugs etc.. Those mentally ill sometimes do not take the medicine as a result of their illness and it goes downhill from there.
That’s the difference.

LivingTheDream said:

I am just wondering where we are going as a society. I have known numerous people with some form of mental illness including bi-polar, and never considered them mentally incompetent.

I realize we need to take mental health seriously and one of the things I love about the younger generation is how conscious they are of mental health.

I am afraid to look it up, but have people who have been on drugs, or drunk ever been found mentally insane, I have seen more crazy shit from people who are blacked out. And if the person was diagnosed with a disorder and didnt take their medicine, are they still considered mentally incompetent. What is the difference between someone not taking their medicine and someone doing drugs, both made a decision that impacted their ability to make logical decisions. I realize this is a gray area, but feels like this is a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Generally no. When one voluntarily takes a non-prescription drug or drinks alcohol they are deemed to have accepted the outcome(s) of that choice. That is why the "'Roid Rage" defence basically flopped.

The legal doctrines around not taking your meds are actually fairly complex but the courts don't see it is analogous to getting drunk etc as the underlying mental illness often makes it difficult for the person to properly assess the likely impact of ceasing the medications on their state of mind. You are right that this is a gray area, and is often fact specific.

As a society, I think the United States has been narrowing the exceptions for using mental health as a defence, (some states have simply banned it and other curtailed it) and are using it more to inform sentencing convictions, in all but the most extreme of cases.

SCOTUS hands the Trump administration a win, by allowing Trump's election integrity executive order to proceed.

Dan Sickles murdered his wife’s lover in broad daylight and was acquitted on grounds of “temporary insanity”. The first murder trial in the USA in which, the defense counsel not only argued it, but succeeded.

Afterwards Dan went on to become a Corps commander (Maj. Gen) in the American Civil War and a member of congress. I don’t think it is a stretch to presume that the defendant who murdered her own children will be found not guilty for her undiagnosed mental disorders. In fact I expect it will be so.

The liberal left has no record of standing up for children that are murdered in this country. In fact it is considered “health care”. 1,141,830 reported abortions in 2024 alone. 3 more..(shrug)..?

Dehumanize the actual victims and educate the jury on the new victim, the mentally burdened mother that stalked down, tormented and murdered her own three children with exercise bands.

It’s never about the defenseless. It’s always about the defense. Brace yourselves for her to be found not guilty.

LivingTheDream said:

I am just wondering where we are going as a society. I have known numerous people with some form of mental illness including bi-polar, and never considered them mentally incompetent.

I realize we need to take mental health seriously and one of the things I love about the younger generation is how conscious they are of mental health.

I am afraid to look it up, but have people who have been on drugs, or drunk ever been found mentally insane, I have seen more crazy shit from people who are blacked out. And if the person was diagnosed with a disorder and didnt take their medicine, are they still considered mentally incompetent. What is the difference between someone not taking their medicine and someone doing drugs, both made a decision that impacted their ability to make logical decisions. I realize this is a gray area, but feels like this is a slippery slope.

Click to expand...

Im sure lots of people have been considered mentally unfit that have been on drugs. I wonder how many of them the drugs have actually made worse though.
I know of a family who’s son was bi polar he was odd but not violent before being diagnosed. When on the meds he was also ok from what I heard.. but when he didn’t take them he went nuts and held him mom hostage at gun point.
Since 1997 we have gone from 470k to over 1million People a year being treated for bipolar disorder. When drugs come out for disorders many doctors push them like dealers. I remember Ritalin in the 80’s and 90’s and adderall for the last 25years. They push it to every parent.
They’ve been pushing antidepressants on women since the 50’s and now almost 20percent of women over 18 are on them and 25 percent of women over 40. Fascinating with the ease of life comes more problems.

Look at how many of the antidepressants, anti anxiety, and anti psychotics actually are known to cause suicidal and homicidal thoughts or acts. Especially when coming off them.
I interested in what causes the differences in drug use and different types of mental disorders by race and ethnicity and why they are so different

RLD said:

Canada is also very close to concluding a free trade agreement with India as well and I doubt Carney was willing to give that up.

Click to expand...

Free trade with India should pretty much wipe out the remainder of manufacturing jobs and tech jobs in Canada.

I’m no lawyer but somthing doesn’t make sense to me, if we as a society deem people mentally capable of being responsible for taking their medication then how are they not responsible for their actions when they stop taking the medication? If they are not responsible for their actions when off their meds than they shouldn’t be responsible enough to control their meds ?

Altitude sickness said:

Free trade with India should pretty much wipe out the remainder of manufacturing jobs and tech jobs in Canada.

Click to expand...

I guess that depends on how it is set up.

It also depends on how much money flows the other way.

There are lots of jobs that efficiency suggests we are better off letting lower paid workers in India do, than do here in Canada. Same with the United States. I don't think rich nations are particularly well served by repatriating low paying labour driven jobs back home.

There are large Indian companies interested in building capacity here. It's just about finding the right balance.

Tubby’s Canteen said:

I’m no lawyer but somthing doesn’t make sense to me, if we as a society deem people mentally capable of being responsible for taking their medication then how are they not responsible for their actions when they stop taking the medication? If they are not responsible for their actions when off their meds than they shouldn’t be responsible enough to control their meds ?

Click to expand...

It's actually more of a medical problem than a legal one. Some illnesses, even when medicated, impact an individual's ability to understand what is going to happen when you go off the meds. While many people do stop taking their meds because of their dislike of the side effects, many others stop taking them because their altered worldview makes them believe that they don't need their meds or that their meds are actually harming them.

RLD said:

It's actually more of a medical problem than a legal one. Some illnesses, even when medicated, impact an individual's ability to understand what is going to happen when you go off the meds. While many people do stop taking their meds because of their dislike of the side effects, many others stop taking them because their altered worldview makes them believe that they don't need their meds or that their meds are actually harming them.

Click to expand...

In which case they’re not capable of making decisions for them selves and should be institutionalize so as to not be a danger to society.

If you competent enough to make your own medical decisions you’re competent enough to stand trial seems pretty simple.

We need to be careful when we discuss mental illness and criminal responsibility. The connection isn't what many seem to assume.

Starting with the caveat that the criminal law is a state (and sometimes federal) matter in the US, and a federal matter in Canada, so different rules may (and do) apply in different places, I think we can say that mental illness, even profound mental illness, does not, in and of itself, result in an absence of criminal responsibility for acts done, even while under the influence of the metal illness.

A mental illness is only the starting point. Without that, the defence of not guilty by reason of [insanity as it used to be called] mental illness doesn't even arise. Step two - and this is the part most people forget - is that the metal illness must result in an inability to understand and appreciate the nature of the act committed is wrong. In other words, the person is unable to know the difference between right and wrong, at the time the offence was committed.

Some jurisdictions also allow the defence if the mental illness resulted in an irresistible compulsion to commit the criminal act. This would be the equivalent of a lack of 'actus reus" in legalese, rather than a lack of "mens rea" as is the case when there is an inability to judge right from wrong. It's pretty common on law school exams to put forward cases of what is known as "non-insane automatism" where someone commits a criminal act while acting under an irresistible compulsion, such that the action is not really that of a conscious mind. An example might be a man who gropes his girlfriend while sleepwalking. Students often think the person is not guilty because he lacked the intent (mens rea) but in fact, he is not guilty because he lacked the actus reus (or act itself).

It is also possible for people to be criminally responsible at some times and not at others, all while suffering from the same mental illness.

Here endeth the lesson! It was fun to recall my criminal law classes from 46 years ago! (Humility forbids me from mentioning that I won the prize!)

Tubby’s Canteen said:

In which case they’re not capable of making decisions for them selves and should be institutionalize so as to not be a danger to society.

If you competent enough to make your own medical decisions you’re competent enough to stand trial seems pretty simple.

Click to expand...

On paper it is always simple. It gets more complex out in the real world.

Doctor gives patient a drug they hope will stabilize them. They see improvement, but don't know that certain core mental functions are not functioning as they should be. There is no scan that will show what a patient is thinking and believing. A mentally ill patient may be incapable of actually articulating what they are thinking to their doctor. It's a very tough field to work in. In Canada we can't get enough medical students to fill psychiatric residencies because people don't want to do that work. The money can be good, but it is a very tough field.

It's also hard to tell who will be a danger to society and who will not. If 1 out of say 100 people with a certain mental illness diagnosis will be a risk to others, do you take away the liberty of all 100? It's not easy to know which of that 100 (or 1000 or 10,000) will be the real risk. It's very difficult work for medical practitioners.

Lastly, as a society, particularly in Canada, the resources we have chosen to dedicate to mental health facilities seems inadequate compared to the size of the problem. We don't have sufficient institutions to house the folks with obvious serious mental health issues, let alone the subtler or borderline ones.

Mental health is a challenge we have not yet effectively met as a society.

RLD said:

On paper it is always simple. It gets more complex out in the real world.

Doctor gives patient a drug they hope will stabilize them. They see improvement, but don't know that certain core mental functions are not functioning as they should be. There is no scan that will show what a patient is thinking and believing. A mentally ill patient may be incapable of actually articulating what they are thinking to their doctor. It's a very tough field to work in. In Canada we can't get enough medical students to fill psychiatric residencies because people don't want to do that work. The money can be good, but it is a very tough field.

It's also hard to tell who will be a danger to society and who will not. If 1 out of say 100 people with a certain mental illness diagnosis will be a risk to others, do you take away the liberty of all 100? It's not easy to know which of that 100 (or 1000 or 10,000) will be the real risk. It's very difficult work for medical practitioners.

Lastly, as a society, particularly in Canada, the resources we have chosen to dedicate to mental health facilities seems inadequate compared to the size of the problem. We don't have sufficient institutions to house the folks with obvious serious mental health issues, let alone the subtler or borderline ones.

Mental health is a challenge we have not yet effectively met as a society.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree I think the reason we have a rise in mental health issues is the same reason there is a rise in lgbtq insert more letters here.

It was easier to say little Timmy had adhd or add than to make him mind in class and at home and from about 2000 on every third kid got diagnosed with somthing and it was used to excuse they’re behaviour. The problem becomes if you don’t make them mind as children and there are no consequences at school than by the time they graduate they have it in their heads anything can be blamed on the disease.

That’s not to say that there are not true mental health issues in Canada there certainly are but it seems the statistics are blown out of perspective by what would of been described as an “active child” one or two generations ago.

All of these mental health disorders must of been around a hundred or two hundred years ago , people either sucked it up or they didn’t some were institutionalized and the rest functioned as best they could. And society as a whole continued to function without changing society to conform to their needs.

RLD said:

It's actually more of a medical problem than a legal one. Some illnesses, even when medicated, impact an individual's ability to understand what is going to happen when you go off the meds. While many people do stop taking their meds because of their dislike of the side effects, many others stop taking them because their altered worldview makes them believe that they don't need their meds or that their meds are actually harming them.

Click to expand...

my only thoughts are:

whether or not a guy/woman is insane, mentally challenged, on drugs, etc, etc his/her actions should determine punishment.

using my grandkid as an example, if a man was under the influence or deranged or "insane" and he hurt or killed my family member, i really don't care why he did it. his ACTIONS should be punished regardless of his mental state. my crippled or dead grandkid does not come back to life, and the purpose of a just system is to punish offenders and protect the public from said crime from occurring again.

i don't care if he was high, or depressed or blacked out drunk, etc. i can even hope that i would be able to forgive the guy, however, the outcome of his actions do not change regardless of his mental state neither should the outcome of justice done to him change regarding his mental state.

regardless of the WHY, the criminal still DID the crime and should be held accountable. nuff said.

Tubby’s Canteen said:

I respectfully disagree I think the reason we have a rise in mental health issues is the same reason there is a rise in lgbtq insert more letters here.

It was easier to say little Timmy had adhd or add than to make him mind in class and at home and from about 2000 on every third kid got diagnosed with somthing and it was used to excuse they’re behaviour. The problem becomes if you don’t make them mind as children and there are no consequences at school than by the time they graduate they have it in their heads anything can be blamed on the disease.

That’s not to say that there are not true mental health issues in Canada there certainly are but it seems the statistics are blown out of perspective by what would of been described as an “active child” one or two generations ago.

All of these mental health disorders must of been around a hundred or two hundred years ago , people either sucked it up or they didn’t some were institutionalized and the rest functioned as best they could. And society as a whole continued to function without changing society to conform to their needs.

Click to expand...

I am pleased that our society has evolved to the point where people are no longer afraid of coming out as LGBGTQ etc and that we are now able to talk about mental health issues in a serious way.

Historically the treatment of people with mental health issues has been deplorable. I am glad we don't treat those people the same way we treated them one hundred or two hundred years ago. Just like I am glad women are no longer property, there is no more slavery, blacks can vote etc.

There are things that were great about society a couple of hundred years ago. How we treated the mentally ill and even how we understood them are not on that list.

1dirthawker said:

my only thoughts are:

whether or not a guy/woman is insane, mentally challenged, on drugs, etc, etc his/her actions should determine punishment.

using my grandkid as an example, if a man was under the influence or deranged or "insane" and he hurt or killed my family member, i really don't care why he did it. his ACTIONS should be punished regardless of his mental state. my crippled or dead grandkid does not come back to life, and the purpose of a just system is to punish offenders and protect the public from said crime from occurring again.

i don't care if he was high, or depressed or blacked out drunk, etc. i can even hope that i would be able to forgive the guy, however, the outcome of his actions do not change regardless of his mental state neither should the outcome of justice done to him change regarding his mental state.

regardless of the WHY, the criminal still DID the crime and should be held accountable. nuff said.

Click to expand...

And there are plenty of places where that is the law.

I don't make an argument (at this stage) on what the law should be, I am just explaining what it is.

RLD said:

I am pleased that our society has evolved to the point where people are no longer afraid of coming out as LGBGTQ etc and that we are now able to talk about mental health issues in a serious way.

Historically the treatment of people with mental health issues has been deplorable. I am glad we don't treat those people the same way we treated them one hundred or two hundred years ago. Just like I am glad women are no longer property, there is no more slavery, blacks can vote etc.

There are things that were great about society a couple of hundred years ago. How we treated the mentally ill and even how we understood them are not on that list.

Click to expand...

We’ve gone past the point of people being unafraid to come out as being alphabet soup and gone to the point we’re it’s shoved a children enough that they get confused and think they are something they are not. Lots of examples of that in the current trans fad with teens who have mutilated themselves and then grown out of it likewise there are an over abundance of mental health problems as I pointed out it was easier to say little Timmy has add or adhd and dope him up with pills than to deal with him.

1dirthawker said:

regardless of the WHY, the criminal still DID the crime and should be held accountable

Click to expand...

This is kind of where I was going with this. It really doesn't matter if the person was high, on medicated drugs, off medicated drugs, or just a terrible person, they bear some responsibility for their actions.

I realize in a common law society the defense is arguing based on previous precedent, but feels kind of wrong.

Betterinthebush said:

Dan Sickles murdered his wife’s lover in broad daylight and was acquitted on grounds of “temporary insanity”. The first murder trial in the USA in which, the defense counsel not only argued it, but succeeded.

Afterwards Dan went on to become a Corps commander (Maj. Gen) in the American Civil War and a member of congress. I don’t think it is a stretch to presume that the defendant who murdered her own children will be found not guilty for her undiagnosed mental disorders. In fact I expect it will be so.

The liberal left has no record of standing up for children that are murdered in this country. In fact it is considered “health care”. 1,141,830 reported abortions in 2024 alone. 3 more..(shrug)..?

Dehumanize the actual victims and educate the jury on the new victim, the mentally burdened mother that stalked down, tormented and murdered her own three children with exercise bands.

It’s never about the defenseless. It’s always about the defense. Brace yourselves for her to be found not guilty.

Click to expand...

Agreed, the blue haired wildebeasts online are talking about how her husband made $400K a year and had her driving a new KIA- So that alone shows that she was abused!

Personally, I'm starting to agree with the comment expressed in the first 15 seconds of this video....